A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
A
& ANR;- --- ----
_v._ -----~B. SARAT CHANDRA & ORS.
B
•C
D
E
F
_)..
- APRIL 10, 1990
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.)
##### ..
_Civil Services:_ _A.P. Police Service Rules,_ _1966:_ _Rule 5-Kecruit-_
_ment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police-Eligibility for-_
_Fixation of minimum age of 21 years as on first day of July of the yearof_
_selection-Validity of._
. Rule _S_ of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 makes a person
ineligible for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police unless he
has completed the age of 21 years on the first day of July of the year in
which the selection is made.
The appellant Service Commission notified on-August 25, 1983 a ·
combined examination for Grade I Services of the State, to be held in ·
November, 1983 wherein the minimum age prescribed for selection to
the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1,1983 as against 18 years for other posts.
, The respondeJlt who was 19 days short of 21 years as on July I,
1983 was not considered for appointment to the post or Deputy
Superintendent of Police. He was, however, selected as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He filed a petition before the State
Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the appellant to select
him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, rontending that the
date for attaining the minimum age prescribed under the notification
was contrary to Rule _S_ of the Police Service Rules in as much as it ought
to be the date of preparation of the list of selected candidates and not
any date anterior to it. The Tribunal accepted that Contention.
- Allowing the appeal by the Service Commission, the Court, G
HELD: The word 'selectioi:i' occurring in Rule _S_ of the A.P. Police.
Service Rules, 1966 cannot be construed only as the factum of preparation of the selecUist. [467B) ---
The process of selection which begins with the issuance of H
463
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.
advertisement and continues through scrutiny of applications, rejection
A
of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, con·
ducting examinations, calling for interview or _viva voce,_ ends with
preparation of the select list for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Public Service Commission is. also indicative of all
these steps. When such were the different su;ps in the process of selecB !ion, the minimum or maximum age for .suitability of a candidate for
appointment cannot be allowed to ·depend upon any fluctuating or
uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed, and more otlen
it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the
date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage
for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum
age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular
c
A
age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular
date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinise
applications. [466F -467 A]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1147
of 1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1989 of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petition No.
3843 of 1989.
T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Manjula Gupta for
E the Appellants.
K. Madhava Reddy, D.R.K. Reddy, Vimal Dave, B. Rajeshwar
Rao and Mudu Vijai for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
G
The facts are not in dispute·and may be stated as follows: The
Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement/Notification No ..
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This is an appeal by the A.P.
Public Service Commission against the decision of the A.P. __.
Administrative Tribunal dated September 22, 1989. The appeal raises
a question as to the scope of Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules,
1966.
18/1983 inviting applications for selection in a Combined Competitive ~
Examination to be held in November, 1983 at Anantapur, Guntur,
Hyderabad, Kakinalla, Tirupathi, Visakhapatnarn and Warangal
H Centres for recruitment to the posts included in Grade-I Services. The
##### '
..
A
B
#### c
D
E
F
G
H
·----......._
#,
## _r_
A.P. P.S.C. _v._ B.S. CHANDRA [SHEITY, _/_ J.] 465
Notification was published in the Gazette dated August 25, 1983. The
post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was one of the posts for which
applications were invited. The respondent applied to that post as well
as to other posts. The minimum age prescribed for selection to the post
of Deputy Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1, 1983, as
against 18 years for other posts. The respondent did not complete 21
years as on July 1, 1983. He was short by 19 days and his case, therefore, was not considered tor appointment to post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was, however, considered to other posts since it was
a combined selection for Grade-I Services.
In 1984, the Public Service Commission conducted preliminary
examination for the eligible candidates. In 1985, final examination was
conducted. In 1986, the candidates were called for interview. On 27
March 1987, the list of selected candidates was prepared for appointment to different categories of posts. The respondent was selected as
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
On 15 April 1989 i.e. about two years after the selection, the
respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
contending _inter a/ia_ that the date 'for attaining the minimum age prescribed under the Notification was contrary to Rule 5 of the A.P.
Police Service Rules, 1966. He claimed that such date ought to be the
date of preparation of the list of selected candidates and not any date
anterior to it. He accordingly sought a direction to the Public Service
Commission to select him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of
Police since he had satisfied the required minimum age of 21 years as
on the date of the select list. The Tribunal has accepted that contention and issued a direction to the State Government to create an additional post as a special case and appoint the respondent as Deputy
Superintendent of Police, if necessary by reducing the number of posts
for recruitment for the next year.
The decision of the Tribunal has been challenged in this appeal
by the Public Service Commission since the view expressed therein is
likely to affect the appointment of a large number of candidates.
There is no dispute that the eligibility of a candidate as to age for
appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police should be determined according to Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules. It is,
therefore, necessary to look first at that Rule. Rule 5 so far as is
relevant provides:
A
B
#### c
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.
"Rule 5. Qualifications-(A) No person shall be eligible
for appointment as a Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Category-2 by direct recruitment unless he
(i) has completed the age of 21 years and had not completed the age of 26 years on the first day of July of the year
in which the selection is made.
xxx xxx xxx"
The Rule prescribes the minimum as well as the maximum age
for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Minimum age is
21 years. The candid.tle must have completed 21 years on the first day
of July of the year in which the selection is made. He should not have
also completed 26 years as on that day. The Tribunal while construing
this Rule has observed:
######,..
"According to the procedure the process of selection
D begins with the issue of the advertisement and culminates
in forwarding the list to the appointing authority. The essence of the process lies in the preparation of the list. A
selection can be said to have been done only when the list is
prepared. In this view the eligibility of the candidates as to
age has to be determined at this stage."
__ __J_
E
If the word 'selection' is understood in a sense meaning thereby only
the final act of selecting candidates with preparation of the list for
appointment, then the conclusion of the .Tribunal may not be
unjustified. But round phrases cannot give square answers. Before
accepting .that meaning, we must see the consequences, anomalies and Ill
F uncertainties that it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact does not dispute
that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement
and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. Indeed, it 4
consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible
candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or _viva-_
G _voce_ and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment.
Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission is
also indicative of all these steps. When such are the different steps in
the process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suitability
of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any -,.
fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed
H and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are
D
E
A.P. P.S.C. _v._ B.S. CHANDRA (SHETfY, J.] 467
eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at
the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or
maximum age must, therefore, be specific, and determinate as on a
particular date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to
scrutinise applications. It would be, therefore, unreasonable to construe the word selection only as the factum of preparation of the select
list. Nothing so bad would have been intended by the Rule making
authority.
A
B
##### '( The appeal therefore, is allowed setting aside the order of the
Tribunal.
In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as C
to costs.
P.S.S. Appeal allowed.
·~.
### _r_
